riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (09/24/83)
I paraphrase:
"It's not our fault that we don't pay the [colored folk,women] as
much as the [whites,men] even though it may seem to the casual
observer that they do the same work. They just don't have the
requisite [experience,education,intelligence,enthusiasm,qualifying
skills,luck(!)] to rise to the appropriate level of authority in
the company."
It sounds to me like a good catch-all excuse for a n y t h i n g . Who
decides what constitutes "authority" and who has what it takes to get it?
The people doing the discriminating, that's who!
To which I might add: any company or indeed any system which "places people
at a disadvantage" because they "enter the job market after taking time off
for child-rearing" is so inherently anti- p e o p l e that the fact that it
is anti- w o m e n is secondary.
-- Prentiss Riddle
{ihnp4,ut-ngp}!ut-sally!riddle
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP
(This isn't really a flame at Steve Maurer. I'm not sure he sees the same
implications in his statements that I do.)steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (09/27/83)
> I paraphrase: > "It's not our fault that we don't pay the [colored folk,women] as > much as the [whites,men] even though it may seem to the casual > observer that they do the same work. They just don't have the > requisite [experience,education,intelligence,enthusiasm,qualifying > skills,luck(!)] to rise to the appropriate level of authority in > the company." > It sounds to me like a good catch-all excuse for a n y t h i n g . Who > decides what constitutes "authority" and who has what it takes to get it? > The people doing the discriminating, that's who! > > To which I might add: any company or indeed any system which "places people > at a disadvantage" because they "enter the job market after taking time off > for child-rearing" is so inherently anti- p e o p l e that the fact that it > is anti- w o m e n is secondary. > -- Prentiss Riddle > {ihnp4,ut-ngp}!ut-sally!riddle > riddle@ut-sally.UUCP > (This isn't really a flame at Steve Maurer. I'm not sure he sees the same > implications in his statements that I do.) ================================== I certainly do NOT. Prentiss Riddle seems to be living in a make-believe world where everyone gets to have the job they always wanted. I, on the other hand, live in a world where there are a large number of people competing for the same select number of high-pay/high-enjoyment/low-work positions. You can see that living in my world is a bit more difficult, because the companies (& universities & governmental bodies, etc) that offer these positions must "DISCRIMINATE" against a large number of people, by not giving them the positions they want. How do *they* [whites,men] do this?? *They* judge on such considerations as how *QUALIFIED* someone is for the position (GASP!!! HORROR!!! SHOCK!!!). And maybe, how *INTELLIGENT* these people may be (OH!! NOO!!!). And even, how *LONG* & *LOYALY* these workers have been. (LOOK LOYALTY-ISM!!!). It sounds to me like a good catch-all excuse for a n y t h i n g . RIGHT??? ----- The fact of the matter is that it has never been illegal or immoral to discriminate in this country -- a fact that should be obvious to anyone who isn't a fool, and to quite a few who are. "Discrimination" is a normal part of our lives; we do it when we buy goods & services, just as companies do when they hire. It is only illegal and immoral to discriminate because of Race, Creed, Color, Gender, and a host of other small things which our founding-fathers decided that it was nobodies-damned-business to know. The real problem with talking about discrimination, is that most people mean "discrimination against me" when they say it. It is always easier to assume that someone has it out for us, than to admit we were not good enough for whatever we are trying to get. This fact alone probably accounts for half the discrimination charges you read in the newspapers, of course including "reverse-discrimination". Steven Maurer p.s. Prentiss Riddle states that any system that "places people at a disadvantage" because of large amounts of time taken for child rearing is anti-people. I laugh at this for many reasons, such as: India, Overpopulation, Who-would-pay, etc. Children are their own reward. If you expect another from society, then that society is putting pressure on you to have them. To consider children only as a supply-side resource, THAT is anti-people.
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (09/30/83)
Steve, what are you really saying? That there isn't any racial discrimination? That's clearly wrong. That there isn't sex discrimination? That, too, is wrong. I can't understand people who simply want to bury their heads in the sand and ignore that U.S. society, for all its good points, is nevertheless racist and sexist to the core. The assumptions we grow up with produce this. Changes are coming, but they come over the objections of people like you. There's always someone claiming that it just ain't so: that separate really is equal; that housing isn't segregated; that opportunity is the same "if you try, try and try, try and try -- you'll succeed at last." White men make the vast majority of important decisions in this country. The few token women and blacks are not inconsequential, but to claim that their presence does anything to the overwhelming influence of white males is unbelievable. The trouble, as someone suggested recently, is that the contributions on this network are made from people who work in a relatively priviledged occupation. We have essentially full employment (my definition of which is "more jobs than people to fill them") at high wages. The field is predominated by younger people, who are often more open-minded. But do you really think our personal, immediate experience generalizes so easily? Is it really true that if YOU can succeed, anyone, in any profession, can? Can you really be so polly-annaish as to think that the ONLY criteria for employment in ALL fields is qualifications? Is that true for store clerks at a high-class department store in an affluent, all-white suburb? Is that true for secretaries to the 62-year-old president of a major firm, who grew up when blacks were niggers (or at least "colored folks")? Let's put a little bit of contemplation into these things before firing off, OK? MIke Kelly Teletype